Choral music is not my favorite kind, and I don't have many favorites in that repertoire. Haven't even thought about it. But I guess it would be either Verdi's Requiem or that modern work modeled on Verdi, Britten's War Requiem.

For me, first would be Mendelssohn's Elijah, followed by many others, including Mozart's Requiem, Verdi's Requiem, Haydn's Creation (or any of his masses), Schubert's Mass No. 6 in E-flat (On discs, the Leinsdorf RCA recording was a winner). While I continue to love Handel's Messiah, I have heard it so much that, as great a work as it is, it dropped to near the bottom of the list. I never quite caught on to Britten's War Requiem, and in general, prefer him as a pianist or conductor more than as a composer with a few exceptions.

Beyond a doubt the Missa Solemnis is the greatest choral work of all time, possibly excluding the finale of the Ninth Symphony, and it is also my personal favorite. Long ago and many times I reported how it gave me the will to live when I was near death in a hospital bed at Johns Hopkins. (The performance was a broadcast by forces including the Detroit Symphony.) Nevertheless, that personal connection is not my main reason. Pure musical supports my judgment. Other great works have been mentioned here, but none compare with the Beethoven D Major Mass, not even, the Bach B Minor Mass. Donald Francis Tovey pointed out that the original parts of the the B Minor are pure and glorious counterpoint, while parts of the Missa Solemnis are in comparison "filler," but it remains true that half of the B Minor Mass is parody work from cantatas which is excellent but inferior to, say, the opening Kyrie, which is surely the greatest choral fugue ever written.

Though I have great respect for dulcinea's taste, she does seem to have fallen into the trap of appreciating a secondary though fine work at the level of a primary one. We once had a member whom she and a few long-timers probably remember, who thought that Bach's best choral work was the Magnificat and that the greatest Romantic or slightly post-Romantic composer was Rimsky-Korsakov. You get my point.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

jbuck919 wrote:
Though I have great respect for dulcinea's taste, she does seem to have fallen into the trap of appreciating a secondary though fine work at the level of a primary one.

I fail to see how there's any obligation to align one's tastes with the conventionally designated "greatest" examples of a particular genre, or how choosing as a favorite something outside that illustrious circle represents a "trap" of error into which one must avoid falling. De gustibus non disputandum est. If Dulcinea says Haydn's final mass is her favorite choral work, we who are not Dulcinea have to accept that as a true statement.

I have observed that most of the threads that Dulcinea creates are simply gambits to induce discussion among the rest of us. You have given your favorites and provided legitimate reasons for their inclusion on your list. In that you have done well. Why not leave it at that?

You're right - dulcinea didn't ask which choral work we think is the greatest, but which is our favorite. Personally, there's no one choral work that I would say is the greatest of all, because there's no one measure of greatness. (If asked which I think is the most perfect, or the most beautiful, I might choose Mozart's "Ave verum corpus.") But at the moment, it's easy to name my favorite. Tomorrow, it could be different.

John F wrote:You're right - dulcinea didn't ask which choral work we think is the greatest, but which is our favorite. Personally, there's no one choral work that I would say is the greatest of all, because there's no one measure of greatness. (If asked which I think is the most perfect, or the most beautiful, I might choose Mozart's "Ave verum corpus.") But at the moment, it's easy to name my favorite. Tomorrow, it could be different.

For those who don't know it, and those who do:

You've got to be kidding. Although it is a fine work, it is also a commonplace. I'm sorry, but against everyone's "favorite" I hold the Missa Solemnis. In spite of the taste of Mark, John, and dulcinea I consider such opinions as utter stupidity, based on favoritism, and for once I will stand up against any of them against any of you. No sane music lover can possibly prefer anything to the Benedictus.

You've got to be kidding. Although it is a fine work, it is also a commonplace. I'm sorry, but against everyone's "favorite" I hold the Missa Solemnis. In spite of the taste of Mark, John, and dulcinea I consider such opinions as utter stupidity, based on favoritism, and for once I will stand up against any of them against any of you. No sane music lover can possibly prefer anything to the Benedictus.

Favoritism, yeah imagine choosing your favorite work based on that.

I am perfectly aware of the monumental status of the B MInor Mass, and the Missa Solemnis. If the question were "what are the greatest examples of choral/orchestral music in western music?" who wouldn't put these two works right at the top? Everyone knows that they are, so why bother starting a thread about it? But Dulcinea asked us what our favorite works are, trying to elicit something individual about each of us. That makes for a much more interesting discussion.

jbuck919 wrote:against everyone's "favorite" I hold the Missa Solemnis. In spite of the taste of Mark, John, and dulcinea I consider such opinions as utter stupidity, based on favoritism, and for once I will stand up against any of them against any of you. No sane music lover can possibly prefer anything to the Benedictus.

And I say that Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is not only no favorite of mine but a highly idiosyncratic and problematic work, not least in the Benedictus. What is that endless violin solo supposed to be about? You're certainly entitled to your preference, and your passionate commitment to it, but give us a break!

I'm much more than willing to allow the Bach passions into the running even in terms of favorite as opposed to quality, but Ave Verum Corpus? Every high school and church choir sings it as a routine matter (and not to brag, except that I am doing so, but I could translate the elementary Latin already when I was about 15), when there are even other works by Mozart (the Great Mass in C minor and of course the Requiem in spite of its known problem of not having been completed by Mozart) that are far greater. I suspect that we have a bunch of people here, like John F according to his own admission, for whom choral music is a matter of lesser interest.

Karl Henning, I like your piece very much, right along with your correcting me by giving the Bach passions their proper place.

Last edited by jbuck919 on Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

jbuck, What part of favorite do you not understand? This thread is about favorites, remember.

When it right down to it, Beethoven's Missa Solemnis and Bach's B Minor Mass are commonplace, just like the Mozart Ave Verum, because they're always done. Maybe not done as often, due to the greater length, difficulty, etc. as the Mozart, but when choruses are planning their big blowout performances with orchestra, they turn to these blockbusters more often than not, simply because they are the supreme masterworks of the genre.

I have a problem with the Missa Solemnis, but it's not the same as John F.'s. I think the Benedictus is the high point of Beethoven's vocal music. It's sublime in so many ways, what with the solo violin weaving through the vocal lines. It stands out as a moment of peace in a work which is otherwise filled with high screechy sopranos shouting at the top of their tessitura. I find the Gloria in particular to be annoying, especially in the ending which tacks coda onto coda, delivers a definitive "Amen, Amen" and then launches into yet another bout of screaming.
But the Benedictus is really sublime, something only late Beethoven could have come up with. And the Agnus Dei makes a powerful plea for peace with the appearance of the military drums and trumpet fanfares before the final "Dona nobis pacem". That makes an even more powerful impression than the Haydn Mass in Time of War which does pretty much the same thing. So I love Beethoven's op. 123, but with reservations.

diegobueno wrote:jbuck, What part of favorite do you not understand? This thread is about favorites, remember.

The part that expresses questionable taste, at least in the questionable sense if not the absolute one, starting with the initial post . I happen to love most of the works mentioned here, not to mention the bulk of the gigantic bulk of Renaissance works plus an early work like the Monteverdi Vespers and the Bach canatas which you have rightly admitted adoring. Forgive me if I just missed it, but no one seems to have mentioned the greatest choral work chronologically after Beethoven, which is the Brahms Requiem. Dulcinea has not made this an interesting discussion at all. She has instead opened the door to people mentioning "favorites" that have no place in a genre that, unlike say Lieder, leaves scant room between what it favorite and what is reasonable to be favorite.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

jbuck919 wrote:[
The part that expresses questionable taste, at least in the questionable sense if not the absolute one, starting with the initial post . I happen to love most of the works mentioned here, not to mention the bulk of the gigantic bulk of Renaissance works plus an early work like the Monteverdi Vespers and the Bach canatas which you have rightly admitted adoring. Forgive me if I just missed it, but no one seems to have mentioned the greatest choral work chronologically after Beethoven, which is the Brahms Requiem. Dulcinea has not made this an interesting discussion at all. She has instead opened the door to people mentioning "favorites" that have no place in a genre that, unlike say Lieder, leaves scant room between what it favorite and what is reasonable to be favorite.

It's hard to know what to say to this. For sheer pedantic arrogance it reaches a new level even by your standards. I don't know why you even bother to associate with such lowlifes as us. If you find this topic not to your level of taste, you could always refrain from commenting altogether and instead start another thread in which you instruct us on the glories of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis. You go on about taste as if you were Charlie the Tuna trying to impress the Starkist people with your good taste. You certainly are impressing people here, but not in a good way.

This forum is not your classroom and its participants are not your students. In case you were wondering. There are no tests and right or wrong answers, and in any case you're not going to be grading us.

I'm sure you're going to whine about how I'm insulting you. Maybe so, and I apologize for doing so. I just want you to see how you're insulting Dulcinea and everybody else on the forum.

diegobueno wrote:jbuck, What part of favorite do you not understand? This thread is about favorites, remember.

Dulcinea has not made this an interesting discussion at all. She has instead opened the door to people mentioning "favorites" that have no place in a genre that, unlike say Lieder, leaves scant room between what it favorite and what is reasonable to be favorite.

They shouldn't be "favorites, because you don't think they are deserving of being anyone's "favorite".
Wow!! that is mighty presumptuous of you....

It's true that I didn't mention either the Beethoven or the Brahms in my post, but that doesn't mean that they are any less "great" works than the ones I did mention. I've sung the Bach and the Messiah, along with the Brahms and others, so I'm simply more attached to the B minor Mass because I found it more challenging and beautiful at the same time.

All of the works mentioned in this thread are great works. There is no ranking scheme, I feel, when it comes to music at this level.

I haven't performed the Missa Solemnis: perhaps if I had, I would appreciate it more. Certainly it's a great work, and all this talk has inspired me to listen to it again, FWIW.

This thread is about personal taste, not critical evaluation. My favorite Shakespeare play just now is "As You Like It," though I'd never claim it's his greatest. But our discussion has gone off the rails. To claim that one's personal taste is superior to anybody else's, no matter how fervently one believes it, is snobbery. My brother doesn't care for classical music though he puts up with it when he must, he's said that what he really likes is gospel singing so his favorite choral piece might be "Amazing Grace," and that's fine.

Though it doesn't strike as many points for profundity or sublimity or (*cough*) greatness as the "masterworks," I would nominate the Faure Requiem.

It's enjoyable and accessible throughout, and of course Faure had a flawless writing technique and real taste. Also, this is a piece that can be worked up by any forces, in terms of size or ability, with only several rehearsals (and, maybe, the backup of a few well-trained singers)...it's for this reason that one critic deemed it "The People's Requiem."

If I could tell my mom and dad
That the things we never had
Never mattered we were always ok
Getting ready for Christmas day--Paul Simon

It truly grieves me that even an innocent question about which choral work brings a smile to your face and tears of joy to your eyes is a cause for acrimony.
If acrimony is so well desired, I'll omit my original next question: which musicians would you like to meet if you could travel back in time?--; and instead post on the Corner Pub a note about a matter of extreme urgency.

dulcinea wrote:It truly grieves me that even an innocent question about which choral work brings a smile to your face and tears of joy to your eyes is a cause for acrimony.
If acrimony is so well desired, I'll omit my original next question: which musicians would you like to meet if you could travel back in time?--; and instead post on the Corner Pub a note about a matter of extreme urgency.

You might then have framed your "innocent" question in terms of a particular piece which brings "a smile to your face and tears of joy to your eyes." The way you worded it, your comments related to taste in a way which perhaps you did not intend.

Your follow-up question which you now semi-retract may actually be more interesting, even though time travel, to paraphrase Emerson, is in the category of hobgoblins of little minds which people who cannot cope with impossibilities fall back on as an entertainment of fantasy. That does not keep this exercise in who do you want to meet in heaven from having its fun aspect. I don't have an answer for myself. As I have posted in the past, I cowered in the corner at the possibility of a personal encounter with Aaron Copland at Princeton. In the presence of Beethoven I would surely vaporize.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

dulcinea wrote:It truly grieves me that even an innocent question about which choral work brings a smile to your face and tears of joy to your eyes is a cause for acrimony.
If acrimony is so well desired, I'll omit my original next question: which musicians would you like to meet if you could travel back in time?--; and instead post on the Corner Pub a note about a matter of extreme urgency.

Dulcinea, your original question was just fine.

As to your next question: I would be delighted to talk to Haydn about how he wrote his music, how he conceived of sonata form (he'd probably say "what, you mean it has a name?"), his assessment of Mozart and Beethoven, how he came up with that wonderful Harmoniemesse, what the unwritten movements of his op. 103 Quartet would have been like, etc. I imagine him as a charming conversationalist and a down-to-earth person.

I would avoid meeting up with Wagner at all costs. I would have to listen to him drone with an hours-long monologue, at the end of which he would hit me up for a large loan. He'd probably try to steal my wife while he was at it.

Though I have heard it dozens of times live, and far more than that in my living room (as have probably most of us) I am still profoundly moved by Messiah, the texts, the music, the lot. I recently heard Missa Solemnis in concert for the first time, and - as you might expect - it is a knockout compared with recordings. I find the Mass in B minor the most majestic, and greatly admire most of the recommendations above. I'll add as a personal favourite Shostakovich symphony 14, plus the Mozart C minor and the big Schubert one, the key of which eludes me right now.
This is without any cogitation whatsoever, or I would add more. But if I could only ever have one it would be Messiah.

barney wrote:Though I have heard it dozens of times live, and far more than that in my living room (as have probably most of us) I am still profoundly moved by Messiah, the texts, the music, the lot. I recently heard Missa Solemnis in concert for the first time, and - as you might expect - it is a knockout compared with recordings. I find the Mass in B minor the most majestic, and greatly admire most of the recommendations above. I'll add as a personal favourite Shostakovich symphony 14, plus the Mozart C minor and the big Schubert one, the key of which eludes me right now.
This is without any cogitation whatsoever, or I would add more. But if I could only ever have one it would be Messiah.

Every year when I must play for "midnight mass" I share on this site some Christmas work I have listened to to wind down. If you leave off the Renaissance, I have run out of ideas, but here is something I have shared more than once. Messiah may be a bit of a cliche in the English-speaking world, but in spite of weak points which Handel himself recognized, he considered it his magnum opus. This movement is usually rendered with a full orchestral accompaniment, which is probably the reason Mozart dropped it to the level of a recitative in his arrangement, but in the following, it is on the level of any solo-obbligato movement by Bach. You will note that the violinist is plainly sweating blood.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

I apologize for putting on my persnickity hat:
The Shostakovich 14th is certainly worth of being a personal favorite, but it isn't a choral piece. There are two vocal soloists, strings and percussion.

The 13th, though, is also a powerful work, and it has a male chorus throughout, and that's one of my favorites from Shostakovich. I saw it performed by the University of Maryland chorus and orchestra a number of years ago, and they had Yevtushenko himself on hand to give a speech beforehand about his experience working with Shostakovich.

I apologize for putting on my persnickity hat:
The Shostakovich 14th is certainly worth of being a personal favorite, but it isn't a choral piece. There are two vocal soloists, strings and percussion.

The 13th, though, is also a powerful work, and it has a male chorus throughout, and that's one of my favorites from Shostakovich. I saw it performed by the University of Maryland chorus and orchestra a number of years ago, and they had Yevtushenko himself on hand to give a speech beforehand about his experience working with Shostakovich.

Yevtushenko did that for us here in NY back when Masur was Director, and it was one of Masur's finest moments on the podium, only it was the fourteenth symphony. Yevtushenko recited the poetry before each movement.

barney wrote:Thanks John for posting that. Who is the soprano? I feel I should know but I don't.
And if the violinist is concentrating intently, so he should. He plays beautifully.

I believe it's the famous Emma Kirkby (I may be wrong), whom I can forgive in this case for the hideous hairdo. That entire performance of Messiah featuring the King's College Choir but at a church in the Netherlands where it is not a cliche, is available on YouTube. I saw it on TV years ago before YouTube existed, and it is easily my happiest memory of a post-midnight-mass unwind, being excellent throughout.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

maestrob wrote:Yevtushenko did that for us here in NY back when Masur was Director, and it was one of Masur's finest moments on the podium, only it was the fourteenth symphony. Yevtushenko recited the poetry before each movement.

No, that was for the 13th symphony - I was there. All the poems in the 13th are by Yevtushenko; none in the 14th are.

maestrob wrote:Yevtushenko did that for us here in NY back when Masur was Director, and it was one of Masur's finest moments on the podium, only it was the fourteenth symphony. Yevtushenko recited the poetry before each movement.

No, that was for the 13th symphony - I was there. All the poems in the 13th are by Yevtushenko; none in the 14th are.

Allow me to correct you, dear Garrett, for you are not the only professional here, and the "amateurs" are invariably your equals if not superiors as connoisseurs. I have posted this before, but here is a piece by Verdi, who incidentally like Brahms was an atheist, which is not one of the Pezzi sacri. The translation of the Pater noster is by Dante.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

We have an advantage over many musical professionals, in that we can just listen to a piece and then move on to another, while a professional can spend weeks learning just one piece from score, preparing, and performing it. So when it comes to repertoire, ask an amateur first. Especially a member of Classical Music Guide.

Unless I've missed something, Verdi's "Ave Maria" is the only music for chorus alone, minus orchestra or organ or any accompaniment, that's been mentioned so far. These may not appeal to dulcinea but they do to me:

Tchaikovsky: Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, op. 41
Taneyev: several short choruses on an Angel/Melodiya LP
Rachmaninoff: Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, op. 31; All-Night Vigil, op. 37
Schnittke: Choir Concerto

All of these but the Taneyev are long works in the tradition of Russian Orthodox liturgical music, a very distinctive style quite unlike those composers' other music. Especially as sung by Russian choruses, with their amazing basses, they are really something to hear.

I'm also a fan of Schubert's part songs for vocal quartet or chorus and accompaniment, some of which are as fine as any of his solo songs. At the top of my list are the powerful "Gesang der Geister über den Wassern" for male chorus and string orchestra, poem by Goethe, and the sublime "Ständchen" for solo alto, male chorus and piano - Schubert also did a version for female chorus.